Hands Off SpongeBob!(Reuters more accurate than the NYTIMES)

Toonzone via Instapundit. ^ | 01/21/05 | Maxie Zeus

[Pikamax]

---

First they came for the Teletubbies and I did nothing, because I hate mewling horribles who live in Orwellian romper rooms. But then they came for SpongeBob SquarePants. Now it's time to march.

That's the reaction a lot of people--not all of them cartoon fans--seem to have had when The New York Times on Thursday reported that James Dobson had criticized Nickelodeon's cheerful yellow sponge for appearing in a video promoting tolerance. The problem, apparently, is that the kind of tolerance being promoted would extend to (among others) people who are gay.

People who read the Times account weren't very happy with Dobson. Over dinner, for instance, my sister laid it on the table with the off-hand remark, "I see that now they're attacking SpongeBob for being gay." "They" are not one of her favorite groups. Nor one of mine.

At Toon Zone, we haven't followed this story with focused interest. But I have watched, with a mounting dread, as each piece of the current controversy started to fall into place. Last November we reported on the video now being criticized.

We reported, too, when the attacks started earlier this month.

And on Thursday we duly carried a summary and link to the Times article (registration required; here is a hassle-free copy).

So I'm not exactly surprised to see this break out into the wider world. While posting the earlier articles I could be heard silently muttering to myself: "3… 2… 1… Make controversy go now!" Complaints that cartoons are corrupting our kids are about as bewhiskered as the Bugs Bunny in a dress gag. This kind of hysteria makes me very tired, both because it's very silly and also very old.

At the same time, let's remember that it's The New York Times we're dealing with. These days it helps to have an advanced degree in Kremlinology while perusing their articles.

Look at the Times opening grafs:

On the heels of electoral victories to bar same-sex marriage, some influential conservative Christian groups are turning their attention to a new target: SpongeBob SquarePants.

"Does anybody here know SpongeBob?" James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, asked the guests Tuesday night at a black-tie dinner for members of Congress and political allies to celebrate the election results.

In many circles, SpongeBob needs no introduction. He is popular among children and grownups as well who watch him cavorting under the sea on the Nickelodeon cartoon program that bears his name. In addition, he has become a camp figure among adult gay men, perhaps because he holds hands with his animated sidekick Patrick.

Now, Dobson said, SpongeBob's creators had enlisted him in a "pro-homosexual video," in which he appeared alongside other children's television characters such as Barney and Jimmy Neutron, among many others.

Compare it with this summary from Reuters:

Christian Conservative groups have issued a gay alert warning over a children's video starring SpongeBob SquarePants, Barney and a host of other cartoon favorites.

The wacky square yellow SpongeBob is one of the stars of a music video due to be sent to 61,000 U.S. schools in March. The makers -- the nonprofit We Are Family Foundation -- say the video is designed to encourage tolerance and diversity.

But at least two Christian activist groups say the innocent cartoon characters are being exploited to promote the acceptance of homosexuality.

Notice the difference?

The Times: Several conservative Christian groups are criticizing SpongeBob SquarePants for appearing in a video that they claim promotes homosexuality. (Those are the words of our reporter Ace the Bathound.)

Reuters: Christian groups are criticizing a video that exploits cartoon characters to advance a pro-gay agenda.

As Reuters describes it, Christian groups are attacking a video; the various cartoon characters and entertainers who appear in it are being criticized indirectly (if at all) for lending themselves to an agenda that these critics deplore. As the Times describes it, though, these groups are specifically attacking SpongeBob. And by sticking in an early and gratuitous reference to SpongeBob's popularity with gay men (a point utterly irrelevant to a story about the video), the Times creates the impression that Dobson is attacking SpongeBob for being a gay icon. No wonder a casual reader comes away with the impression that Dobson is attacking SpongeBob for being gay.

In fact, if you read the Times article carefully you'll see that it adds nothing to the story carried by WorldNetDaily two weeks ago, except for some innuendo about a popular cartoon character. (Reuters' more pellucid summary makes clear that the story hasn't advanced in the last two weeks.) Of course, I don't know for sure: maybe Dobson went off on an anti-gay tirade in which he mocked SpongeBob for his cheerfulness, his tendency to skip and sing, and his fondness for holding hands with his best friend Patrick. But if so, why is the only Dobson quote in the Times the colorless "Does anybody here know SpongeBob?"

I'm not interested in the "gay" angle to SpongeBob, and as an editor and reporter on this site I have no interest in gay marriage, gay rights or any of the other social controversies that so exercise Dobson. I think Dobson and his allies are very foolish to treat what sounds like a bland grammar-school video as a threat to American values; I think it is execrable that he should try piggybacking his social agenda onto innocent cartoon characters and their innocent creators.

But the Times, intentionally or not, appears to be guilty of the same thing. Deliberately or not, it appears to have twisted Dobson's position and imputed to him (without evidence) an argument he does not seem to have made. And in making SpongeBob sound like a martyr, it appears to be trying to piggyback a rival agenda onto his very thin shoulders: Save SpongeBob from the bluenoses!

Cartoons don't deserve this. SpongeBob doesn't deserve this. And SpongeBob's creator, Stephen Hillenburg, certainly doesn't deserve to have his creation kidnapped and turned into a giant puppet in some freak protest parade, no matter what its cause.

To Dobson and the Times I've a simple message: Get your hands out of SpongeBob's square pants.

Update: Dobson's organization has released a statement on the controversy.

[Long Cut]

Good article...some interesting stuff, there.

[Long Cut]

And that car company was NOT "promoting" anything. It was simply aiming its advertising at what it calculated to be a lucrative market.

Which gets rather obliquely back to what I was saying...simply recognizing that gays exist and dealing with that fact to make money is NOT the same thing as "promoting" their lifestyle. Having kittens because someone decided to market a product to them is therefore ludicrous, unless one is likewise uncomfortable with capitalism.

[nmh]

As long as they like the messenger, the message can be anything. Yes, it's going to 61,000 schools across the nation.

Of course, they haven't published a list. No matter where I've looked, all I see is a number.

But I don't wonder why they're withholding the names of schools.

---

Yeah ... and look at the ADULT here that defend it!

They're as stupid as their kids.

[nmh]

"Yep - 61,000 of them. While I don't know how many public schools exist, 61,000 schools are quite a few."

THANK GOD my daughter isn't in a public school sewer.

WHEN will people realize how they tout debauchery as knowledge?

[nmh]

"Yep - 61,000 of them. While I don't know how many public schools exist, 61,000 schools are quite a few."

THANK GOD my daughter isn't in a public school sewer.

WHEN will people realize how they tout debauchery as knowledge?

[ItsOurTimeNow]

And his best friend is a pink starfish.

A pink starfish.

Think about it.

[nicmarlo]

look at the ADULT here that defend it! They're as stupid as their kids.

I have a different name for it: WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

[Thumper1960]

Nope. This guy is for real. Even to mention that he should seek some counsel for his irrational anger sets him off. Much like a family member, by marriage, who was in 'Nam hates Asians with a great deal of passion. We watch them, but, as we've been told by those in "authority", nothing can be done until something happens.

[Thumper1960]

Do yourself a favor and ban TV from your home. There's no telling what evil may be waiting to infect your offspring.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.

[F16Fighter]

"You have an agenda just like everyody else has an agenda, you just don't have the wherewithal to spell it out an support it. ...I'll keep an eye out for you in the future. You're an exceptionally good teacher when it comes to obfuscation and hubris. I can learn a lot from you."

The anti-theist "Republican" Hun lies just outside the walls....

They now demonstrate an obvious impatience in awaiting the the right place and right time to ally themselves with their spiritual brethren -- the moral relativists of secular humanism's political left.

[Thumper1960]

So, now I'm an "anti-theist".

Brother, how could you be so wrong.

[Thumper1960]

You will be targeted, now.

Your sign-up date is too "new". Those who see a "troll" at every turn find pleasure in such a thing.

Keep those asbestos shorts handy!

[Zechariah11]

Is it "irrational anger" or is it someone who just vents to another he mistakenly confides in. (eg. upset at oriental drivers, bossy women, sloppy urban types). There are times I become upset at minor things. Then when I vent, I hope it is not to someone who will judge me and whisper moral indignation behind my back -- someone who is not wearing political correctness as a badge of honor.

[Thumper1960]

It is "irrational anger".

When a man's eyes become red, his body literally shakes, his jaw clenches, his neck veins strain, his voice raises and strains, and he claims wildly evil acts (such as child rape) are perpetrated by a group of people and not reported because of their protected status, that's irrational anger.

[spinestein]

[Basically, the whole thing started out as a civil debate over homosexuality, and it turned into a screaming match between Dave and a couple of the others on this thread.]

That's why.

Screaming matches put the brakes on intelligent debate and this screaming match was perpetuated by ad-hominem attacks against the MOTIVES of other posters to the detriment of the logical discussion.

You'll notice that posters who never let their passion allow them to degenerate to this language don't get kicked out. Remember the purpose here is to further the truth, not to "win" an argument.

[spinestein]

[When a man's eyes become red, his body literally shakes, his jaw clenches, his neck veins strain, his voice raises and strains, and he claims wildly evil acts (such as child rape) are perpetrated by a group of people and not reported because of their protected status, that's irrational anger.]

Your coworker is a NUT and you should never go near him again.

You should also not make of him your stereotypical model for everyone who disapproves of promoting homosexuality to grade schoolers.

[The SISU kid]

Bump for good measure & book for a later reply...

[Thumper1960]

He's an extreme case. To be sure. I cannot ignore the basic similarities in some respects that he shares with many others. It is more than sad that such a person cannot be counseled to handle his anger before he acts on it.